-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 171
fix(pyamber): disable data sub-queues registered after disable_data #6724
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
eugenegujing
wants to merge
2
commits into
apache:main
Choose a base branch
from
eugenegujing:fix/internal-queue-disable-data-leak
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+208
−6
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can we avoid locking? the whole design is to use a lock free data structure in the hot path (e.g., put and get)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the lock might not quite be on the hot path as it's only reachable on a channel's first put. I instrumented it to verify: for 100k puts across 10 channels acquire the lock exactly 10 times. Also, I think the layer below already locks on every element: SubQueue.put takes put_lock and get takes take_lock on each call. I did try a lock-free version (publish the channel id first, then re-check _queue_state), but there's a window where the element lands in the still-enabled sub-queue before disable_data gets to it, which reopens the same leak this PR fixes. The lock-free issues could probably be worked around by creating the sub-queue disabled and only enabling it after rechecking the state, switching _queue_ids to copy-on-write, but that version might be overcomplicated. This lock might feel like the simpler safe choice. Happy to discuss!